From: Stephen C. Carlson (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Apr 25 1998 - 10:39:27 EDT
At 11:46 4/24/98 -0500, Benjamin Raymond wrote:
>At 01:33 AM 4/24/98 +0000, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
>>These answers are related. IDE here is an example of a frozen imperative,
>>like AGE and FERE, in which it acts more like a particle like IDOU than a
>>true imperative. This explains both why IDE does not agree in number with
>>the women (it is no longer a declinable imperative) and why the hO TOPOS
>>is in a parenthetical nominative. See BDF $ 144, p. 80 (Funk's notes).
>Thanks, especially for the reference. Is "frozen imperative" a term of
>This would have been my tentative conclusion, but Matthew's different
>reading caught my attention.
"Frozen imperative" is Funk's term, but I don't know if it his creation.
Based on a brief examination of the 33 or so times IDE appears in the NT,
I found 16 references where IDE is apparently address to a plural
audience (Mt26:65 Mk3:34 13:21a b 15:35 16:6 Jn1:29 36 47 7:26 11:36
12:19 19:4 9:14 Rm11:22 Ga5:2); 10 references IDE where IDE is used with
the nominative (Mk3:34 11:21 13:1 16:6 Jn1:29 36 47 19:14 26 27); and
6 examples where both obtain (Mk3:34 16:6 Jn1:29 36 47 19:14).
John 19:14 is an especially clear example: KAI LEGEI TOIS IOUDAIOIS:
IDE hO BASILEUS hUMWN.
>>>Matthew seems to have altered this with the smoother IDETE TON TOPON, but
>>>Mark's account remains nevertheless.
>>Whether Matthew "altered" Mark's IDE would be a good topic for the new
>>Synoptic-L list, but I note that Matthew is not adverse to using IDE with
>>the plural at 26:65 IDE NUN HKOUSATE THN BLASPFHMIAN (Mk14:64 omits IDE
>Sorry about that; it may have been a Freudian slip, as I've been delving
>into the synoptic problem of late. Since you mentioned it, would you
>happen to have subscription info for this "Synoptic-L" list?
To subscribe, send the message
"Subscribe Synoptic-L" to firstname.lastname@example.org
or see the web site
for more information.
>Without getting into redactional issues, the difference between the Markan
>and Matthean grammer is still rather striking to me. Funk mentions in the
>same note that IDOU is already a particle in Attic. What about IDE (in the
>first century)? How do you think the grammar affects the different
>accounts? Matthew still seems smoother to me here; Mark appears somewhat
>rougher and more dramatic. What I'm getting at is the different effect
>these two constructions would have on a reader. Is IDETE TON TOPON more of
>an Atticism, perhaps a more "proper" way saying it, albeit less shocking
>than Mark's reading? I'm trying to understand why each author would have
>chosen his particular syntax.
Without getting to the source critical issues here on B-Greek, Matthew
has more of an emphasis on *seeing* the place where Jesus lay and Mark
stresses more the *place* where they laid him. In Mark, the women are
already in the tomb (v5), but this is not quite so clear in Matthew's
account, where the women seem to be outside the tomb and invited in
by the angel. Thus, it seems to me that the Mark's and Matthew's
choice of language and grammar are both appropriate to their own
-- Stephen C. Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, email@example.com : and songs chant the words. http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ : -- Shujing 2.35
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:36 EDT